Pages

Ad Image (Banner 1 and 2)

Banner Javascript (to make ads rotate)

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

WHITT'S END: 11.6.13

Whether you're at the end of your coffee, your day, your week or even your rope, welcome to Whitt's End:

*According to my sources - which, I'll be honest, was a commercial I saw on TV last night - this season's non-stop Christmas music is finding a new home on 103.7 KVIL KLUV 98.7 FM. Gotta admit, I'll tune in. Like I do every single year.

*Weird thing about the Mavs' trouncing of the the Kobe-less Lakers last night: Dirk Nowitzki's first basket didn't come until three minutes before halftime. Dallas was already up 18 by the time he scored. And, strangest of all, his initial hoop came on a driving, two-handed dunk. I'm telling ya, these Mavs are different. And better.

*Steve Patterson is a solid choice to be the new athletic director at Texas. And he's got some sorta local ties. When Ross Perot Jr. bought the Mavs from Don Carter in '96 the team needed a new general manager. Patterson was on the short list, until Perot adviser Frank Zaccanelli talked another guy into the gig - Don Nelson. And Patterson ascended to power at Arizona State in 2012 after the school's botched attempted hiring of SMU coach June Jones. That failure was led by former athletic director Lisa Love, who got her start in college sports in the '80s as the women's volleyball coach at UT-Arlington.

*We're seeing all those goose-bumpy stories about kids with terminal illnesses "adopted" by sports teams, and allowed to score a touchdown in a Spring Game or whatnot. What a great idea. Who thought of it? Would you believe a 9-year-old girl with a brain tumor named Jaclyn? If you have an extra 15 minutes today, use it to watch this story. And check out the update this month on HBO. I dare you not to feel better afterward. Don't forget the Kleenex.

*Last month a Desoto woman and her son were shot while in their home. Turns out, the shooter was the woman's estranged husband. His name - swear - is Richard Richard. Not making excuses for the guy, but aren't you behind life's 8-ball when you're christened Dick Dick?

*Felt like old times - only in a new studio - with Newy Scruggs last Sunday night on NBC 5.

*We've all encountered a Richie Incognito in our lives. You know, the guy who lacks savvy and cleverness so he simply brute bullies his way through life. I do my best to not associate with men whose fallback solution to every problem is a fistfight. And if my bosses ordered me to "toughen up" the new guy with physical threats and racial slurs, I'd simply find new bosses. And Incognito says he's "trying to weather the storm." No, dude, a storm is something created by Mother Nature that affects you. You're trying to survive your own actions. This isn't something that's happening to Incognito, it's something that Incognito put into action.

*Couple folks on Twitter are alerting me to an audible F-bomb aired on The Ticket. Didn't hear it, obviously, because I don't listen to that station. But if so, they could be fined by the FCC. Money, but - in the end - no biggie.

*In the NBA, penetration kills. Watching Monta Ellis dribble into the lane almost at will opens up so many options for this year's Mavs.

*The Trinity Railroad Express train - The T - has plowed into three cars in the last 40 days. At some point it can't be all bad drivers. Or can it?

*Hump Day White Truck Wednesday: As several of y'all are now finding out and pointing out, White Trucks are not only the worst drivers in the Metroplex but also the cockiest, most disrespectful parkers. Lots of effort goes into being that much of an asshole.

*President Obama will be in Dallas this afternoon. But, wait, he's stumping for a new law that he passed to be more popular? If the Affordable Healthcare Act is that great - and I personally think it is - shouldn't it do a better job of selling itself?

*Seriously, Dez Bryant claims he knew nothing about the Emmitt Smith Rule. How can that possibly be? I search for the answer over at NBC 5's Blue Star Blog.

*The Stars' game against the Senators on Sunday drew a rating of 0.1. Sorry, but no one cares about hockey around here anymore. Well, almost no one.

52 comments:

First question on Texas and Patterson.....wonder how snuggly he gets to Mack between now and the end of the season? Might be an indicator of whether Mack is, indeed, at risk for losing his job.

Saying that white trucks are the scourge is not only incorrect, but incomplete. Can't tell you how many BMWs, Mercedes and other high-end, overpriced and more than likely leased vanity vehicles I've seen parked at an angle taking up two spots so they don't risk the dreaded door ding, you know, because their precious cars and their owners are so much more special than everyone else('s).

The reason Obama is stumping to promote his ACA is because it can't do a better job of selling itself. It's an impossibility now that folks are realizing how bad, oppressive and overreaching it is and how it will continue this administration's effort to strangle the working middle class. I just wish some of these numbskulls would have actually read the law before they blindly voted to pass it. Most of what was promised has turned out to be completely untrue. The few things that are admirable are far overshadowed by the many things that are horrible. And you are right, if it was so great, it shouldn't need additional reinforcement after the fact.

No, the reason he's stumping for it is because there's so much misinformation out there that people don't understand what it does... including yourself. It is over complicated and has plenty of issues but it is a nice improvement over what we had previously.

Actually Anon 11:13, I do understand what it does because I've seen it now firsthand. Premiums up, coverage that I don't want or need is now required, have lost three of our four family doctors, among many other disappointments. So don't tell me what I know and don't know because you haven't the slightest fucking clue.

Well, now, 2:35, they get to pay a penalty (tax) with no insurance. Wonder how they like that? At least you admit that this was sold on nothing but lies.....rates were to drop; they have and will continue to go up. You could keep your plan no matter what; you cannot. You could keep your doctor; many cannot. And you're right it is collective.....collective misery.

Thanks to this nonsense, after the first of the year, my insurance premiums (mainly thanks to me HAVING to add things I do not want or need) will be so high that they will be unaffordable. I can see why you love this law though....it is very enticing to those who are unable to think and make decisions for themselves without the (heavy) helping hand of the feds. Why should anyone be required to have coverage for things they do not need and will never use? I'd love for some explanation of that.

Richie your blind support for the ACA aka Obamacare shows just how ignorant you are. On sports related topics, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because that is based on your profession as sports writer/caster/blogger. But will you please just admit that the only reason you spew forth your dumb ass, left leaning, political views....is to get your readers riled up and to increase hits on this here blog. Everyone who has half a brain knows that's what you are doing....just admit it.

Dave why don't you admit this is the only place you've found to spew forth your dumb ass, right leaning political views so you can get people like me to respond to said dumb ass views. Now, waiting for your intelligent response which usually includes fuck you, shit face and other well thought out points.

Wow, that's really ballsy! If you'd take yourself out of the loop of misinformation and myopia then you'd realize the ACA GREATLY helps many people who need it the most and helps to control the healthcare companies who like to take advantage of people. Sure, there are issues with it but it's a vast improvement.

Not that I'm one to defend Dave, but he has a point. Richie posts controversial topics in his blog to generate discussion, and politics is a great way to do that. The very fact you've gone off the deep end on Dave's post is a prime example.

OK John, explain to the readers how the ACA "GREATLY" helps "many people" when 90% of those that have tried to sign up for it, were funneled into Medicaid. People that already had insurance, were promised by our honorable President Obama that they could keep their insurance plan and Dr, and are now finding out otherwise. He flat-faced lied to the American people about that. Then there are those whose premiums are going up anywhere from 100-300%. And to add to this pile of shit, we have the rollout, which is quickly turning into a fallout.... In a few months, once we have some better stats, I have heard predictions that the number of people that sign up will be less then those who lost their coverage to begin with....that is a NET LOSS of people that are insured. So explain to the readers here again John.... how is the ACA "GREATLY" helps the MAJORITY of Americans??? We would LOVE to know... :)

I question RW as well if you think about it the job he had last year ended. I would assume that CBS provided health benefits for it's employers. So he had to get new insurance after he was shit canned. So is his benefits still the same??????????? If he has a smaller amount of coverage then sure maybe his payments did just go up $16.

No response huh John?? I respect the fact that you might be busy with job or whatever, but if you find the time to reply to my comments, I am sure the readers would love to hear from you....I know I would.

"Explain to the readers how the ACA "GREATLY" helps "many people" when 90% of those that have tried to sign up for it, were funneled into Medicaid."

I'm going to need a citation on this 90% funneled into medicaid stat! The people funneled into medicaid are people close to the poverty line who can't be expected to buy their own insurance or pay penalties associated with not having insurance. How is this a bad thing? These are people who previously didn't have insurance and went to the emergency room (the most expensive care possible) on the tax payers' dollar.

"People that already had insurance, were promised by our honorable President Obama that they could keep their insurance plan and Dr, and are now finding out otherwise. He flat-faced lied to the American people about that."

Yes, Obama clearly didn't mention this was going to happen (whether intentionally or not). That aside, do you think it was an accident these people can't keep their insurance? It's completely by design due to the fact that their insurance is garbage which will never do anything but take their money and still leave them broke if they ever need to use it. The exact same thing was done with the Massachusetts plan and for good reason. These plans are taking advantage of the consumer.

"Then there are those whose premiums are going up anywhere from 100-300%."

These are the same terrible plans which did nothing for the consumer. The rate of increase on plans across the board is down from all recent yearly increases (this is one of those misleading talking points you here where someone says costs went up... well yeah, costs ALWAYS go up but how much).

"And to add to this pile of shit, we have the rollout, which is quickly turning into a fallout"

No doubt the exchange rollout is a complete disaster thus far is undermining the potential success of the law every day it drags out. Other parts of the rollout have gone much more smoothly.

"In a few months, once we have some better stats, I have heard predictions that the number of people that sign up will be less then those who lost their coverage to begin with....that is a NET LOSS of people that are insured."

I HIGHLY doubt this will be the case but we won't know for a while obviously. You have to also take into account all the people gaining coverage through the expansion of medicare.

"So explain to the readers here again John.... how is the ACA "GREATLY" helps the MAJORITY of Americans??? We would LOVE to know... :)"

I never said the majority of Americans, I said many people. Post schooling young adults 19-26 -- how many of these people could afford any medical procedure previously? Anyone with pre-existing conditions -- without the ACA, have fun being bankrupt or just not being able to get any help at all. The people losing their plans -- maybe now they will get something they can actually use (and likely get a rebate since they probably weren't able to afford a good plan previously). The list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the ACA overall either but I do think it's an improvement. You have to put yourself in the position of some of the many people who were completely helpless without it. IMO we need a single payer system like all the other modern countries (with an option to upgrade to premium insurance with your own money if you choose).

The problem with the Republican/Tea Party approach is that they're not proposing any real alternatives or improvements. Status quo is not ok.

John, my old plan was BETTER for ME at half the price because it included the things I required, not things I don't need. Is "garbage" something that fits myself and my family? Of course not. Requiring people to buy coverage that doesn't fit them, i.e., maternity, pediatric dental and vision, etc., etc., etc., is like requiring every person in the country to buy a lawnmower even if they live in a high rise apartment. It doesn't make sense and just drives the cost up.

"Garbage" might be the company line in response to the obvious lies that were told, but it is yet another lie.

Methinks with the "garbage" comment, John's either delusional, drinking too much of the koolaid, or some combination thereof.

There are many, many very bright and educated Americans who are perfectly capable of determining what coverage is good for them, and what is "garbage". They don't need John or the Feds to determine that for them.

How many things are really optional when it comes to health insurance? You do understand the concept of insurance right? It's things you don't plan for! If there are instances of things you don't need, they're the rare exception not the rule.

Well, Anon 4:00.....let me ask you this and see if you have an answer since you are so knowledgeable about insurance. Why should someone who is not or cannot have children be required to carry maternity insurance? This is just one example of many, but please let me know the reasoning behind it. That IS required of everyone with the new law and is part of the reason that instead of rates going down (as PROMISED by the seller), that they will continue to skyrocket under this law.

Of course it would get throw out because it's based on complete and total lies. What did you expect? Still would love to know why it is okay to force people to buy something (certain insurance coverage items in this instance) which they don't need, can't use and will never need.

This fact is really the downfall of this entire law and the reason it is failing now and will eventually have to be reworked or scrapped altogether. It is the people who are fully capable of making their own best decisions.....many of whom supported the law originally.....who now oppose it now that the facts are known of what it entails.

Incognito - I mean, the dude is a major doucher, but I'm starting to think the word "bully" is waaaay overused nowadays.

ACA - Great? Um. Dude. Have you not been reading the newspapers lately?

Stars - Don't get me started. I'm a season ticket holder. I'm one of 5 people in this town that still gives two fucks about hockey. Every year my season ticket rep tries to put me in seats I don't want, citing phenomenal demand for tix, and every game I've gone to for 3 years has an empty barn. Every year it seems they do their damnedest to make it harder and harder for me to give them my money. I don't have this problem with the other teams in town. To say their front office has been a clusterfuck the last few years would be an understatement. I'm shocked they pulled a 0.1.

Blue Martini - it would be a lot more interesting to me if it was "Boots & Boobs".

The ACA does have it's upside but i'm not sold it's more good than bad. How many people that were told if you like your current policy you can keep it are going to be cancelled come years end (answer millions). How many people who can't afford insurance are being forced to buy it anyway (answer more millions). How many people already insured are forced to have a higher deductible and higher premiums based on income (answer everyone). These are just simple truths about the ACA so other than insurance companies being forced to cover pre-existing conditions what part is it that you love so much about it?

But what kind of plans did those people (who can't keep their plans) have? I'll tell you what kind -- the kind that take your money and never give anything back except in rare cases. It's absolutely not an accident and for good reason that those plans are not allowed anymore. They're taking advantage of the consumer.

Not to mention people currently losing cancer specialists, etc., because they're not in the new plan they were forced to buy when their current one was cancelled.

Our healthcare system was/is in dire need of reform, but this is starting to look like a bad piece of legislation with several very bad unintended consequences hastily drawn up and pushed through by a president desperate to show he'd gotten something accomplished in his first term.

Rooster - Congress could have killed the bill anywhere along the way to the President's desk. The fact that they didn't at least implies that a majority thought something needed to be done.

That said, I have yet to hear or read anything from those that oppose the bill offer anything in the way of replacement or improvement. And that included the most vocal - the honorable Canadian Senator from Texas.

It's really easy to sit back and criticize based on politics. It's a lot harder to offer solutions without some kind of bias and what the ACA needs is signification repairs without that bias, B.S. and I'll show you rhetoric.

I'm not one that subscribes to the theory passing a bad law is better than passing no law. I'm thinking perhaps in this case it would have been better to take time to draft a piece of legislation that works rather than ramrodding something through just because you are facing re-election and have nothing to show for your time in office.

Any legislation you have to lie your ass off to get the American public to buy into might need further reflection...of course, unless you're facing re-election.

Anon 11:21, that is a lie and you shouldn't believe it even though that is what your leaders are telling you to say. The plans that are getting cancelled are plans that don't have everything that the ACA now requires, which was THEIR INDIVIDUAL CHOICE based on their own personal situation. I mean what the fuck do I need maternity insurance for now that our child birthing years are behind us? I was happy to finally get to drop that coverage, but now our enlightened government requires me to have it and pay for it even though we won't and physically can't have more kids. Reconcile that? And that's just one example of this shitty law.

If the millions of Americans who were told by President Obama that if you liked your policy keep it, if you like your doctor keep them had known at election time that was really not the case that President Obama would have been re-elected. Lets be honest the answere is no he wouldn't have been, precisely the reason that little tidbit of info didn't make it out into the open. No doubt our current health care system is in need of overhauling, but lying to the American people about it just to get re-elected is status quo much like passing a bad law (ACA) because you think it might be better than what we had not sure but might be. We need solutions folks not excuses, lies, and I don't know's.

The Stars were up against the Cowboys. Not a fair fight. How about last night's numbers? How did they do up against the Mavs/Lakers? I don't doubt that they were the lower of the two, but was it as bad as up against the Cowboys? Start putting together some wins and get into the playoffs and the bandwagon will fill up again.

I understand that you are not a hockey fan and will attempt to bash it when you see fit, but don't pick a game that is played on a Sunday because it fits your purposes. It'd be nice as a local sports blogger to at least try and support every team in the DFW area (I mean, you do with the Cowboys, Rangers, and Mavericks). Everyone knows that football reigns as supreme king on Sundays, so throwing out ratings for a hockey game broadcast on Sunday is ridiculous. If you really don't care about the sport, then please don't include Mike Modano or the Stanley cup in your header.

I'm only going to pick one part of this law (the ACA) that chaps my hide, otherwise, I'd run out of room to comment. Since Richie thinks Obamacare is so great, maybe he can give me an answer to my question. So far the only answer I've received from my insurance company and the healthcare.gov phone number is "that's what is required of the law."

These are the facts: I'm a 58 yr old man, my wife is 51, our youngest child is about to turn 25 (and no, she's not on our insurance, she's old enough to pay for her own.) After our youngest was born, we decided not to have any more children, three was enough. Shortly thereafter, my wife had a hysterectomy and about 10 yrs ago I had a vasectomy. So, there will be NO MORE CHILDREN! Someone tell me why I'm now required to pay for maternity coverage on a health insurance policy when it's so obvious I won't ever need that coverage?

Like I said, that's just one of my issues with this law. And the next time a politician says we need to pass a bill so we can find out what's in it, someone should take that politician out behind the shed and beat some sense into them.

That's what I've been asking myself and I'm in the exact same situation.....have had three kids and we are finished and took care of that to avoid any possible surprises. I've yet to get an answer other than, well, that's what the "better" plans require, which is total BS because it ain't better if we're paying for something that we obviously don't need.